Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Nov 10, 2025 00:12

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 09:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Make the most of it before it to late.

Quote:
The Guardian

Rob Evans
Monday November 27, 2006
The Guardian

Ministers are today accused of rushing through drastic proposals that would "neuter" the Freedom of Information Act. The government is not planning to hold a proper public consultation on the proposals, breaking a pledge made by a minister in parliament.
Lord Falconer, the constitutional affairs secretary, with the backing of ministerial colleagues, is putting forward measures that would make it simpler for government to reject requests for information from the public on the basis of being "too expensive to answer".

But critics - including MPs, campaigners and the media - accuse ministers of seeking to prevent the release of politically controversial documents, less than two years after the act came into force.
In a letter to ministers published today, Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: "We are particularly alarmed at the speed with which the proposals appear to be moving towards implementation ... there is no reason why the issue should be dealt with in such haste."

He added that ministers, having announced the proposals last month, were seeking early parliamentary approval.

He said ministers were avoiding a formal public consultation "because the government does not want to be deflected from the course of action which it is determined to pursue".

He highlighted a promise made by Baroness Ashton, a minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, when she was being questioned by a House of Commons committee in April. Asked whether ministers would hold a proper consultation if they were planning to change the way the public was charged for requesting information, she said: "If we ... decide that we want to do something quite different around the fees regime, I think we have to do a public consultation in any event." She added it was "important to have dialogue" with the public.

Mr Frankel said: "That is an important commitment which would normally be regarded as binding. We urge you to ensure that it is honoured."

Since the act became law it has been used to reveal information including the amount of EU subsidies paid to landowners and members of the royal family, the number of patients who die in operations carried out by individual surgeons, and details of who is lobbying ministers. According to the Campaign for Freedom of Information, such disclosures would be blocked by the planned changes.

Under present rules public bodies can reject requests if the cost of retrieving documents exceeds £600 for Whitehall and £450 for other public bodies. Ministers want to make it more likely these caps would be breached by allowing departments to count time taken to read documents and discuss their release.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:32 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
So hold it in your suitcase for ten hours, bill for that 'storage' at £45/60 per hour and then don't release the document.

Neuters indeed!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 13:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
Quote:
She added it was "important to have dialogue" with the public.


Well, we all know that is bollocks - they do not believe in consulting with the public, they believe in doing whatever the hell they want without consultation.

Have we been consulted about handing 80% of our legislative ability to Brussels? I think not. There are many other examples where they could have consulted with the electorate, but they didn't

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.013s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]